View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tub0rg69 Contributor
Joined: 24 Sep 2019 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
i dont get the argument. faster cpus are faster?
sure they are, its not like i am arguing there is no performance increase. but the reason we dont have the performance increases we had befrore 2005, neither multi nor single threaded is not because intels greed. sure they are greedy, but they would have made more money if they could go on doubling frequency instead of cores. but they cant because of RC-delay.
while you might get twice the performance with double the cores, you are guarenteed it with double frequency. and all diminishing returns of multithreading get worse the more cores you have.
that problem was even well understood before 2005 thats why intel was ready to go multicore when they hit the 4 ghz barrier in their pentium 4s.
if you want check "The end of Dennard Scaling" "Beyond CMOS" "MOSFET"
"RC time constant"
with this technology we wont see a 100 or 1000 fold increase in performance per watt anymore. of course you can add thousends of cores but in the end you just keep using increasing amounts of power to gain decreasing amounts of acceleration.
of course something else will come, but its unclear right now what that will be. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2548
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
my argument is similar to yours, I agree with "post 2005" argument in particular.
My point was, with parallelization more cores and threads were the way to go, they still are. People expecting 100% perf. jump are unrealistic, unless they mean twice more cores. In that case, HEDT is there, intel had 16/32 thread cpu long before AMD conceived Ryzen. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4818 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys know that there are transistors out there with way higher switching times, right?
Think 50-60GHz and beyond.
IBM made 210Ghz, see?
This one is 604Ghz and it's from 2005!
So don't come mumbling about any barrier at a measly 5Ghz.
There is a vast amount to headroom to grow into. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2548
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
those are singular units, one switch, one transistor. Now put several billion of them, supply them with power, and cool them.
Besides, IBM said that they will have 100GHz operational in 2 years. that was supposed to be in 2007.
You could have said "there is quantum CPU working right now" instead.
So, you can either postpone the upgrade until nanotubes become a thing, or just upgrade already |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4818 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was going to tell Intel back in 1999 about cooling the shit out of CPUs.
They did not want to talk to me, they were "not interested" in the design.
They still struggling with heat, to date.
Fuck Intel, I hope they go bankrupt over their greed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Elite Member
Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 4196
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Csimbi wrote: | I was going to tell Intel back in 1999 about cooling the shit out of CPUs.
They did not want to talk to me, they were "not interested" in the design.
They still struggling with heat, to date.
Fuck Intel, I hope they go bankrupt over their greed. |
You don't even lie well. Most people who are going to really push their system wont be relying on some oem fan. Total non-issue. Only a hater like you could come up with the bullshit you do. Go back to your flipping burgers job at McDonalds. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AndrewSimmon Contributor
Joined: 25 Jan 2024 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tub0rg69 wrote: | Neither Intel nor AMD have been able to double permance for about 15 years now.
not because they do not want to, believe me they would love to make a 3 year old pc obsolete if they still could.
They cant increase frequencies anymore, we had 4ghz 20 years ago,
and they cant drop voltages anymore, we ran around 1.3 vcore 15 years ago.
That is why they started throwing cores at the problem. Remember Adding cores to cpus costs them money the dies become bigger and bigger instead of smaller and smaller. Is having 2x 3ghz better then having one core running 6 ghz for a cpu? no of course not but it was the only way they still could increase performance in a meaningfull way. well at least for things that can run parallel.
Microprocessor running doped silica chips, like harddrives using magnetic metal disk are at the end of their development. to really increase the performance a new technology insteat of an iterrated will be required. for hdds its probably going to be ssd drives, for Microprocessor it remains to be seen. |
agree with you |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4818 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2024 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tom wrote: |
You don't even lie well. Most people who are going to really push their system wont be relying on some oem fan. Total non-issue. Only a hater like you could come up with the bullshit you do. Go back to your flipping burgers job at McDonalds. |
Who said anything about an oem fan? lol
I was going to cool the cpu without a fan.
You assume wrong. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2666 phpBB Group
|
|